These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Odyssey 1.1] Heavy Assault Cruisers

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1461 - 2013-07-24 03:39:46 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Still a little shocking that you haven't even talked about lowering the HAC build cost to make it a more competitive choice with the other options around its weight class.


I honestly hope you're considering that or else all 70 pages of this will end up being for nothing as people keep ignoring HACs for the ships that give a similar performance for a fraction of the cost (something that you the balance team caused).

Balancing these ships based on a 100m hull would be a lot better than trying to balance a 200m hull.
Sharwen Anchev
Lai Dai Counterintelligence
#1462 - 2013-07-24 03:56:27 UTC
I see no reason to buy the currently proposed Zealot when the Omen Navy Issue exists.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1463 - 2013-07-24 03:57:47 UTC
Sharwen Anchev wrote:
I see no reason to buy the currently proposed Zealot when the Omen Navy Issue exists.

That can be applied to almost all HAC vs Navy Issue Cruisers

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Harrison Spielman
Bofanez Engineering Science and Technology
#1464 - 2013-07-24 04:16:07 UTC
When does 1.1 go live?
Chimpface Holocaust
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1465 - 2013-07-24 04:18:29 UTC
Harrison Spielman wrote:
When does 1.1 go live?


When it's ready
NetheranE
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1466 - 2013-07-24 06:33:19 UTC
Harrison Spielman wrote:
When does 1.1 go live?


When its NOT this pile of crap they call a "HAC Rebalance"
NetheranE
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1467 - 2013-07-24 06:38:29 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Hey again

So we had the tournament this weekend and then I was out of the office yesterday. I'm getting started on this topic again today, but as evidenced by this enormous thread, there's plenty to do. I think we will have another CSM review step before getting the new version (which isn't even finished yet) back to you guys. If things go well, I'll have a new pass for you guys by the end of this week, if things go slow it would probably be start of next week.

Thanks for all the feedback and ideas. A lot of you have different ideas about these ships, but hopefully we can distill some good stuff and do a revision that you're all excited about.


Please see my last 2 Wall-o-texts for a generalised, and more focused summation of changes that me and several friends cooked up.

You will fight several posts mimicking my statements and goals up to this post, and echoing my belief of the proposed changes to be a good baseline for all players of all security status to appreciate.
Lua Mioukl
Threatening Kitten Aura
#1468 - 2013-07-24 06:41:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Lua Mioukl
It seems like people who designed the first "assault" ships didn't have the same idea as most of the new developers.

To me, it's quite evident what "assault" means. if we take a look at an assault frigate, we immediately see that they are more durable and overall more powerful version of their t1 version. they take what in essence made its t1 version different from the other t1 frigates and improve it. But assault doesn't seem to simply mean more dps and more ehp. a destroyer is hardly an assault frigate and a bc is hardly an assault cruiser.

Assault simply means it can get in a fight and actually survive because its more durable, can pack a bit more punch than the t1 version while retaining the same kind of speed as the other hulls of its size and the same signature radius.

What i see assault frigate have over t1 one that HAC don't have over the t1 cruisers is significantly more survivability. Assault frig have more slots and can focus more of them on what the ship is good at but HACs don't have more slots, and in some cases, they literally lose slots that would let them be more survivable.

The prime exemple of that is the muninn. Honestly take a ship that have bonus to EM resist and making it a ship with a low amount of medium slot is quite ridiculous. it doesn't make it more survivability than a rupture. One great thing that could be done with the Muninn is making it a small sleipnir; more med slots so it can take advantage of its resist bonus.

The bottom line is, t1 cruisers gained more slots, in order to make HAC substantially better, I would say add 1 slots to every HACs and basically leave them as they were. If you think about it, the Sacrilege for example, would be fine with 1 more low slot and the same old drone bay. If you add 1 more slot to every HAC where their t2 resist profile tells you to add them, they all become balanced.

Some would say that adding slots to every ship every time there is a patch is insane -it is- but the t1 cruiser were buffed beyond what was needed and therefore HACs need considerable love or they just won't be considered worthy of their price tag.
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#1469 - 2013-07-24 06:50:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Sabriz Adoudel
I see two different visions for the Ishtar that I'm not sure can coexist in one ship.

On the one hand there are people (including the designer of this balance pass) that want to see a medium speed, medium durability sentry sniper platform that can have a few other tricks up its sleeve (e.g. light drones and heavy drones for short-range DPS when you can't dictate range and ECM drones as a backup).

On the other hand there is how it is used now by other people, as a close range DPS beast with blasters, webs and drones ripping apart targets at point-blank range.

These roles are different enough from each other to deserve different ships, IMHO, and I believe the Navy Vexor suits the former. With its requirement to only train one damage system (drones), it is better suited to lower skilled characters anyway. The Ishtar should then be one of the rare ships requiring two damage systems (medium hybrids and drones), as it is SP intensive just to get into the hull.


My proposal for the ship:


Baseline the drone bay at 375 or 400 rather than have it be skill based.

Bonuses:
Gallente Cruiser skill
50% drone damage, HP (10% per level of Gallente Cruiser, 5 is a prereq anyway)
5% medium hybrid turret damage

HAC skill:
-10% per level CPU/PG requirement for medium hybrids (design the CPU/PG so that at HAC 4 you have a few fitting issues still)
+5% medium blaster tracking per level
+5% medium railgun falloff per level

Balance other stats around this. I'm pretty content with Tranquility Ishtar EHP - the ship isn't a glass cannon, but it's not hard to melt with focused fire either.


Note how this:
- Frontloads all of the drone benefits. If you don't want to stick many guns on your Ishtar and want to use it as a Navy Vexor with better resists, you no longer are pushed into training the HAC skill high at all.
- Provides bonuses to either rails or blasters to allow more options, and as your HAC skill increases, the difference in 'feel' between a rail Ishtar and a blaster Ishtar widens
- Allows people to potentially upgrade from tech 2 Ion Blasters to tech 2 Neutrons by investing in the HAC skill.



An alternative design would be to steal the Guardian-Vexor's ability to drop more than 5 drones, although for lag reasons I prefer my suggestion here.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#1470 - 2013-07-24 06:56:25 UTC
Oh should also add one thing to those talking about cost balancing. Don't forget that the cost to create these has dropped 20% since Odyssey as a result of the decryptor changes.

While before using the +3 PE, +3 ME decryptor was only marginal on building HACs, it now offers very good value as those decryptors cost next to nothing. I now use them even on 10 run BPCs of 1200k modules, so using them on a 1 run BPC of a 150m ship is automatic.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Akturous
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1471 - 2013-07-24 07:29:36 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Oh should also add one thing to those talking about cost balancing. Don't forget that the cost to create these has dropped 20% since Odyssey as a result of the decryptor changes.

While before using the +3 PE, +3 ME decryptor was only marginal on building HACs, it now offers very good value as those decryptors cost next to nothing. I now use them even on 10 run BPCs of 1200k modules, so using them on a 1 run BPC of a 150m ship is automatic.


I've been using those on all my cruisers and above now, it's great.

Vote Item Heck One for CSM8
Aliventi
Rattini Tribe
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#1472 - 2013-07-24 08:15:36 UTC
They are still running ~135-140mil to produce with those decyptors and you still want to take some profit so the end up selling for 150-160mil. Why should I put 10 of those on field for 1.5 bil when I can put 50 fitted T1 cruisers on the field for the price of the unfit HAC hulls? I am down paying a premium for some effectiveness. I am not down for paying 10x+ the hull cost premium. Lower the price to 70 mil to produce sell them for 80 mil. At that price the premium is perhaps at least worth the extra effectiveness while not making them so cheap that people can lose them and not worry so much like they can with T1 cruisers.
Alexander McKeon
Perkone
Caldari State
#1473 - 2013-07-24 08:16:10 UTC
The comparison to Tier 3 battlecruisers and Tech 3 hulls offer some good starting points I think:

1. Give HACs in general the ehp & resists to survive in a small to medium sized engagement with proper logi support; this is something that attack BCs don't do very well, and offers a way to distinguish HACs from BCs & T1 counterparts.

2. Give them 75% to 90% of the DPS that at T3 can dish out; there is a definite niche for a cruiser-sized short ranged (compared to BC / BS) durable high dps platform, and right now only T3s fill that role well.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#1474 - 2013-07-24 08:17:54 UTC
The navy cruisers have something that really makes them worth spending 50-70 mill on them.

Mainly their speed and agility mixed with decent firepower and tank.

I don't really see a reason to buy any of these ships for anything other than ahac gangs.. I guess you can get a rail eagle and enjoy being the only guy in your long range fleet that has a tank but thats not very useful..

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Stridsflygplan
Deliverance.
Arrival.
#1475 - 2013-07-24 09:41:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Stridsflygplan
the old vagabond is 8.75m/s faster then the new one. that is about 75m/s nerf when MWD is running and two nano fitted. why nerf the speed on a ship that is supposed to be specialized to going fast?

old buffer vaga wont benefit from the shield boost bonus anyway....
raawe
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1476 - 2013-07-24 09:50:25 UTC
Stridsflygplan wrote:
the old vagabond is 8.75m/s faster then the new one. that is about 75m/s nerf when MWD is running and two nano fitted. why nerf the speed on a ship that is supposed to be specialized to going fast?

old buffer vaga wont benefit from the shield boost bonus anyway....


Now it's supposed to fit ASB i think, only viable thing on vaga since there are no additional mid slots
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1477 - 2013-07-24 09:50:56 UTC
Stridsflygplan wrote:
the old vagabond is 8.75m/s faster then the new one. that is about 75m/s nerf when MWD is running and two nano fitted. why nerf the speed on a ship that is supposed to be specialized to going fast?

old buffer vaga wont benefit from the shield boost bonus anyway....



It s the same concept that made them give tempest worse accelerateion, agility and mass than the apocalypse until a few of us hammered down into their minds that it was very WRONG!


Give vagabond back its speed.

Give the sacriledge a proper slot layout.


Give vagabond -+1 M -1 L OR find another bonus for it


Ishtar needs fittings.. simple and obvious.


Zealot will not cut it, contrary to their beliefs. Since the nano nerf, zealots are not he same anymore. INcrease a bit their PG so beams are fit more easily.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kane Fenris
NWP
#1478 - 2013-07-24 09:54:02 UTC
Stridsflygplan wrote:
the old vagabond is 8.75m/s faster then the new one. that is about 75m/s nerf when MWD is running and two nano fitted. why nerf the speed on a ship that is supposed to be specialized to going fast?



why you people ***** about this 75m/s when the problem why the ship isnt as dangerous as it used to be lies elsewhere...

the problem of the vaga is with blaster rebalance te nerf and ship reworks and taloses out there its prey went nearly extinct

to be a viable solo ship (there need to be more solo ships) it needs to be ale to kite cause in solo ships you need to be able to engage against the odds and be able to run, brawling solo will just get you webed scramed and killed.

when you want the vaga to be viable solo ship again you need to up its dmg projection at kite range and maybe up its kite range by buffing longpoits or giveing it a longpoint bonus.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1479 - 2013-07-24 10:19:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Sergeant Acht Scultz
Sharwen Anchev wrote:
I see no reason to buy the currently proposed Zealot when the Omen Navy Issue exists.



To feel special and not frustrated for spending so much time training for it. Plus your T1 cruiser will get a better insurance reimbursement than your T2 thing.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1480 - 2013-07-24 10:23:56 UTC
Kane Fenris wrote:
Stridsflygplan wrote:
the old vagabond is 8.75m/s faster then the new one. that is about 75m/s nerf when MWD is running and two nano fitted. why nerf the speed on a ship that is supposed to be specialized to going fast?



why you people ***** about this 75m/s when the problem why the ship isnt as dangerous as it used to be lies elsewhere...

the problem of the vaga is with blaster rebalance te nerf and ship reworks and taloses out there its prey went nearly extinct

to be a viable solo ship (there need to be more solo ships) it needs to be ale to kite cause in solo ships you need to be able to engage against the odds and be able to run, brawling solo will just get you webed scramed and killed.

when you want the vaga to be viable solo ship again you need to up its dmg projection at kite range and maybe up its kite range by buffing longpoits or giveing it a longpoint bonus.






Sure needs 5km/s speed 15m sign radius hit with 425mm at 50 km (at least) and able to fit double xl-asb before implants ogb and combat boosters.

Minmatar are the fastest (except stupid Cynabal) do the best dps in fall off and selectable dmg, Vaga problem lies somewhere else: SFI and Stabber good enough to do the same job for cheaper, that's it.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne